Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

looksee

Autochange wrote: »

I said earlier how people can get so much in a twist about the goings on in the us but dont have an issue with the thousands living on our streets or the over 12 month hospital waiting lists here. Its like many of you are seeing the goings on in the Us as a soap opera which is keeping you enthralled

It is, it is a bit of (dangerous) entertainment between bouts of discussing on social media the issues of homelessness and hospital waiting lists. None of these activities actually achieves anything, but at 11 pm what else would I be doing?

Its noticeable that you are still here in the discussion, don't you have a hospital to organise?

Autochange

Really Interested wrote: »

Then why are you still posting here?

I believe in a working national health system that gives a good service to all patients and I believe in a functioning public and private housing system that does not allow homelessness so if that makes me left I'm guilty as charged. I also believe anyone who uses violence to promote political opinion should be prosecuted under the law again if that makes me left I'm guilty.

Im not disagreeing but we have none of those things here in Ireland.
I agree with you about anyone who uses violence should face prosecution. I never disagreed.

Anyway we need to get the thread back to Trump. I unintentionally derailed it a bit.

Autochange

looksee wrote: »

It is, it is a bit of (dangerous) entertainment between bouts of discussing on social media the issues of homelessness and hospital waiting lists. None of these activities actually achieves anything, but at 11 pm what else would I be doing?

Its noticeable that you are still here in the discussion, don't you have a hospital to organise?

Thats a bit harsh. Its your country too.

In that case dont you have a Trump tweet to complain about?

melty melty beautiful wickedness

I get the impression Trump would prefer not to be president. He loves the attention but he doesn't love the constant decisions he has to make and the inevitable criticism he gets no matter what he does.

If there was some way he could resign with no disgrace attached I'd say he'd love to but unfortunately there's no such way.

Itssoeasy

Autochange wrote: »

What exactly do they want to achieve?

The people now ? Well I'm not sure but it's clear they feel an affinity with the confederacy which wanted to succeed from the union.

Sweetemotion

Really Interested wrote: »

Then why are you still posting here?

I believe in a working national health system that gives a good service to all patients and I believe in a functioning public and private housing system that does not allow homelessness so if that makes me left I'm guilty as charged. I also believe anyone who uses violence to promote political opinion should be prosecuted under the law again if that makes me left I'm guilty.

How are you going to pay for this Utopia?

aloyisious

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I get the impression Trump would prefer not to be president. He loves the attention but he doesn't love the constant decisions he has to make and the inevitable criticism he gets no matter what he does.

If there was some way he could resign with no disgrace attached I'd say he'd love to but unfortunately there's no such way.

I imagine that he believed his "drain the swamp" and "MAGA" would be enough to get things done without a continuous hands-on by him being needed. His statement on the healthcare issue "nobody knew health care could be so complicated" was revealing; he didn't see/realise that everyone else with opinions and needs on the issue would have to be seriously taken into account when voting for scrapping the disliked "Obama-care" plan & providing a replacement plan at the same time was and is indicative of his mindset in dealing with obstacles in his path. Deconstructing them is not easy from the Oval Office, not quite having the ultimate power he thought went with the job.

Really Interested

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How are you going to pay for this Utopia?

Just because I believe in something does not mean I do not understand that it may not be achievable.

But Trump could pay for universal health care if there was a 90% cut in defence spending maybe. Would just mean they then spend what other countries spend.

wes

Rjd2 wrote: »

I don't recall enough about them tbh, but they were nowhere as crap when Andrew Breitbart was there and before Bannon had really taken control. Breitbart were somewhat less mental back in the day.:eek:

He has been pretty brutal on Trump to be fair anyhow and bailed once it became little more than a Trump fansite.

I don't really remember the early days, as I wasn't to aware of Breitbart back then. It has certainly gotten worse under Bannon, and the attacks on him from the alt right (Shapiro), have been pretty brutal (we can easily guess the reason).

wes

StudentDad wrote: »

I can't comment on US school books but I do agree on the importance of history. It's kinda scary when you ask someone about a particular historical figure and you get a blank stare in response. That's why I get what you are saying in relation to these statues as a kind of reminder. That said my fear is that if we whitewash everything we'll forget.

SD

The statues are the white wash. There not condemning slavery, but rather celebrating those who defended it. Again, the intent was never about history, but a threat against African Americans.

Peregrinus

What Wes says. The statues themselves are an attempt to assert a particular narrative about the American civil war. They mostly don't date from the war itself; the bulk of them were erected between 1900 and 1930 and they served the dominant political agenda of those times, which was an essentially racist one. To see the statues as something neutral, objective or fact-based, and opposition to them as ideological is completely to misread the situation.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

I believe humans are inherently racist and that racism will always bubble under the surface in a multicultural society. Racism can rise to the surface at any time.

Politicans refuse to accept that but I believe its true.

Inequality is the driver of the vast majority of social unrest in my view.


Sweden recognised that inequality causes social problems and so they decided to reduce inequality. They improved the wages and conditions of lower jobs and they reduced the wages of upper jobs. They were doing this in the 1960s and 1970s apparently. CEOs of large companies are only paid 4 times what their toilet cleaners receive or thereabouts.

It worked in Sweden. Their society was peaceful and content, in the 1970s.

Wildlife Actor

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I believe humans are inherently racist and that racism will always bubble under the surface in a multicultural society. Racism can rise to the surface at any time.

Agreed and this is the reason why racist movements cannot be written off as a tiny minority to be ignored. Racist regimes happen in civilised societies when the environment is suitable. That underlying racism is the fuel. Economic hardship/unfairness is the oxygen. These groups are the spark plugs. (sorry for the krap analogy but you get the idea)

Zubeneschamali

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

The existence of racism needs to be acknowledged and discussed.

And then beaten off the streets and back into hiding.

Trump's victory made these racists and Nazis think they could parade about in triumph. They learned they were wrong, and have cancelled 67 planned marches to go and hide in their mom's basements rally online.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

Posts are being duplicated and other posts are dissapearing.

Fifth time lucky.
Ultimately, if populations are racist then politicians should represent that racism. To do otherwise is dereliction of duty.

It is the refusal of politicians to accept that their own populations are racist which is the problem, or is at least part of the problem.

In other words, politicians are delusional when they say that their populations desire and want a multicultural society.
When did populations ever indicate such a desire?


Trump recognises that racism exists and he panders to it to a degree. He won the presidency. The existence of racism needs to be acknowledged and discussed.

Continuing with forced multiculturalism is reckless in these circumstances.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And then beaten off the streets and back into hiding.

Trump's victory made these racists and Nazis think they could parade about in triumph. They learned they were wrong, and have cancelled 67 planned marches to go and hide in their mom's basements rally online.

Your position is fine as far as it goes, but you think violence can be used against your opponents and so they likely think the same. In other words, your position leads to increased violence.


What if you are in a minority?
Do you then accept that democracy is tryanny of the majority and you accept that you have lost?

Or do you fight back anyway, despite having lost?
If yes, you do fight despite having lost, then current minorites are going to refuse to lose. They reserve the right to use violence if they lose votes.


The takeaway theme appears to be that violence pays. I'd agree with that by the way, violence does pay.

Zubeneschamali

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

Your position is fine as far as it goes, but you think violence can be used against your opponents and so they likely think the same.

These are Nazis and racists - they don't need me to tell them how to use violence against their opponents. It is kind of their thing.

And I think it should be the police beatiing them - the arm of the state authorized to crack heads.

Saruhashi

wes wrote: »

I don't really remember the early days, as I wasn't to aware of Breitbart back then. It has certainly gotten worse under Bannon, and the attacks on him from the alt right (Shapiro), have been pretty brutal (we can easily guess the reason).

Don't like Shapiro but he is a pretty vocal and frequent critic OF the Alt-Right.

Pretty ignorant (or dishonest) to describe him as Alt-Right. Unless I am reading you wrong here?

melty melty beautiful wickedness

The role of politicians is to represent the majority viewpoint, or the viewpoint of their electorate.

If the majority viewpoint is racist then how should politicians respond and act?

The position of some posters is that politicians should refuse to represent the majority opinion if they personally disagree with it, and instead they should force their own opinions on other people.

I'm saying the existence of racism should be acknowledged and discussed, and after that discussion, the borders should be closed and we should strive for a homegenous society, while also striving to minimise inequality.

I'm assuming that a majority would vote as I suggest, especially if they correctly understood the decision they were being asked to make.

oscarBravo

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I believe humans are inherently racist...

Based on what?

Racism is learned behaviour. Children are not racist until they're taught to be. The idea that racism is inherent is an insidious one that's used to justify hateful behaviour, and it needs to be stamped out ruthlessly.

If you're racist, that's on you. You learned to be racist; you can learn not to be.

Zubeneschamali

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

The position of some posters is that politicians should refuse to represent the majority opinion if they personally disagree with it, and instead they should force their own opinions on other people.

Democracy does not mean 51% of the people get to enslave the other 49%.

Kermit.de.frog

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Democracy does not mean 51% of the people get to enslave the other 49%.

Brexit proves otherwise. No attempt by British govt to accomodate remainers.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

oscarBravo wrote: »

Based on what?

Racism is learned behaviour. Children are not racist until they're taught to be. The idea that racism is inherent is an insidious one that's used to justify hateful behaviour, and it needs to be stamped out ruthlessly.

If you're racist, that's on you. You learned to be racist; you can learn not to be.

I believe a white baby is more likely to turn to white parents for assistance than turn to black parents and vice versa.

If that was true that would be objective discrimination.

Do you believe that babies are colourblind in the circumstances described?


Are babies species aware, or is that also learnt behaviour?

Would a baby look for assistance from a dog as quickly as it would a human?
Did the baby learn to turn to humans or does the baby instinctively recognise the difference between dogs and humans?
Can that inherent discriminatory ability also work with humans of different appearances and colours?


I suspect babies recognise differences between people and that they instinctively turn to those most like them. That's the start of racism.

Christy42

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

The role of politicians is to represent the majority viewpoint, or the viewpoint of their electorate.

If the majority viewpoint is racist then how should politicians respond and act?

The position of some posters is that politicians should refuse to represent the majority opinion if they personally disagree with it, and instead they should force their own opinions on other people.

I'm saying the existence of racism should be acknowledged and discussed, and after that discussion, the borders should be closed and we should strive for a homegenous society, while also striving to minimise inequality.

I'm assuming that a majority would vote as I suggest, especially if they correctly understood the decision they were being asked to make.

No it isn't. Politicians have to represent their entire community. Not just the majority. Obviously they will themselves be biased towards the majority but they have a duty to also consider the minority. Racism is a dereliction of this duty.

Not everyone is as racist as you claim either. A homogenous society simply sounds boring, I love hearing other people's experiences (and like it would breed more racism as I always think the best way to prevent racism is to talk to the people you might hate and see they are generally pretty ordinary).

Finally people should always be attempting to better themselves. Not simply accept they should be scumbags.

wes

Saruhashi wrote: »

Don't like Shapiro but he is a pretty vocal and frequent critic OF the Alt-Right.

Pretty ignorant (or dishonest) to describe him as Alt-Right. Unless I am reading you wrong here?

I was talking about the alt right attacking Shapiro, to clear things up. No fan of him, but what I was trying to say, was that the alt right attacks on him were awful.

oscarBravo

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I believe...

I suspect...

It doesn't matter what you believe or suspect. Racism is learned behaviour. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's on you.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

It doesn't matter if racism is natural and inherent or if it is learnt.

What matters is whether or not racism exists, not the cause of the racism.

Of course, if racism is learnt then the prevalence of racism could be reduced in the future, but if racism is inherent then we cannot affect its prevalence. Perhaps we could reduce its worst excesses through education.


I suspect racism in humans is a mixture of inherent behaviour and learnt behaviour. Humans don't need to learn to be afraid of spiders and snakes for example, so humans definitely have some inherent views of the world which don't need to be learnt. Instinctive behaviour we call it in animals.

The cause of racism is less important that the existence of racism. We need to discuss racism and perhaps move more slowly to accomodate the racists in our society, even if that appears backward and anachronistic to the more evolved uber humans in our society.


Racism is real and simply wishing it didn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Ignoring racism and insisting on political correctness means we are failing to discuss major problems in our society and that must be seen as a dereliction of duty by politicians.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

Christy42 wrote: »

No it isn't. Politicians have to represent their entire community. Not just the majority. Obviously they will themselves be biased towards the majority but they have a duty to also consider the minority. Racism is a dereliction of this duty.....

Politicians cannot represent the diverse opinions of their electorate if the differing viewpoints are diametrically opposed to one another. In other words, the opposing viewpoints are incompatible with one another and only one viewpoint can be satisfied. In that case the majority viewpoint must be satisfied.

For example, gay marraige can only be decided by a simple majority.
If you have two sub-cultures on your society and they want diametrically opposed things you cannot satisfy both parties and so unhappiness is guaranteed.


Mostly homogeneous societies can largely avoid this problem as most people share similar viewpoints.
Of course, even in ethnically homegeneous societies you can still have substantial cultural differences, for example, between catholics and non-catholics in 1980s and 1990s Ireland.


Ultimately, small groups get along and large groups fight.

pitifulgod

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

Politicians cannot represent the diverse opinions of their electorate if the differing viewpoints are diametrically opposed to one another. In other words, the opposing viewpoints are incompatible with one another and only one viewpoint can be satisfied. In that case the majority viewpoint must be satisfied.

For example, gay marraige can only be decided by a simple majority.
If you have two sub-cultures on your society and they want diametrically opposed things you cannot satisfy both parties and so unhappiness is guaranteed.


Mostly homogeneous societies can largely avoid this problem as most people share similar viewpoints.
Of course, even in ethnically homegeneous societies you can still have substantial cultural differences, for example, between catholics and non-catholics in 1980s and 1990s Ireland.


Ultimately, small groups get along and large groups fight.

By your rationale of letting hate speech dictate policy then it would seem to condone Hitler to an extent. Where would you draw line with Hitler? If he deported all the Jewish people, many of whom were born in Germany, would that be justified? Pandering to the dangerous is your proposal.

Bluefoam

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

Politicians cannot represent the diverse opinions of their electorate if the differing viewpoints are diametrically opposed to one another. In other words, the opposing viewpoints are incompatible with one another and only one viewpoint can be satisfied. In that case the majority viewpoint must be satisfied.

For example, gay marraige can only be decided by a simple majority.
If you have two sub-cultures on your society and they want diametrically opposed things you cannot satisfy both parties and so unhappiness is guaranteed.


Mostly homogeneous societies can largely avoid this problem as most people share similar viewpoints.
Of course, even in ethnically homegeneous societies you can still have substantial cultural differences, for example, between catholics and non-catholics in 1980s and 1990s Ireland.


Ultimately, small groups get along and large groups fight.

But in the case of gay marriage in Ireland, the politicians have respect to all sides of their community and allowed them to vote on the matter. Now that the vote is done, they don't **** on the losing side. Those people still exist in society and retain their rights as citizens.

Your arguement is weak, like stating that you believe that steeling is acceptable and it's not fair that the police would arrest you for steeling someone's car...

Chips Lovell

melty melty beautiful wickedness has been banned, so no need to respond to their posts any further.

BoatMad

The cause of racism is less important that the existence of racism. We need to discuss racism and perhaps move more slowly to accomodate the racists in our society, even if that appears backward and anachronistic to the more evolved uber humans in our society.

discuss it , yes, accommodate it . NO. or are you suggesting we accommodate pederasts etc ( another claimed inherent behaviour trait)

Humans don't need to learn to be afraid of spiders and snakes for example,

actually they do , children learn it from their parents, etc

Humans have always tended to congregate and associate with like minded versions of them selves, however racism , which is an active thing is a learned behaviour largely imprinted on children by their parents

Captain_Crash

BoatMad wrote: »

actually they do , children learn it from their parents, etc

Humans have always tended to congregate and associate with like minded versions of them selves, however racism , which is an active thing is a learned behaviour largely imprinted on children by their parents

Without going off topic, there have been studies done showing that the fear of spiders and snakes ect.. is actually an animal instinct and not something learned growing up.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic please. This thread is about Donald Trump's presidency.

InTheTrees

Big news today in the USA is the category 3 hurricane Harvey thats going to hit the coast of Texas this evening. Heavy damage and flooding is expected.

Its going to be a big test for trump. I believe he hasn't even appointed anyone to head FEMA yet.
(FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency).

ancapailldorcha

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sorry for my last post.
"Bog news" obviously means "Big News" but because boards.ie doesn't function correctly on some platforms I'm unable to edit.
Clicking on "edit post" does nothing.
So my embarrassing spelling mistake is there to stay I'm afraid.

Fixed.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: More constructive posts please.

Headshot

It's quite sickening seeing Trump banning transgender Troops

Itssoeasy

Trump has officially pardoned that Sheriff in Arizona who was found guilty of racial profiling. I mean I'll laugh when he claims the "fake news" aren't reporting what he's saying or tweeting.

Zaph

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump has officially pardoned that Sheriff in Arizona who was found guilty of racial profiling.

The message that this pardon sends out is that there hasn't been a better time to be a racist in America in years. Could he not have even waited a while to let the furore over Charlottesville die down a bit instead of just throwing another gallon of petrol on the fire?

Calina

Sebastian Gorka has apparently resigned.

StringerBell

Headshot wrote: »

It's quite sickening seeing Trump banning transgender Troops

His meaningless tweet a while ago or something new happen there?

Its sickening to watch him pay tribute to a war hero in McCain a little while ago also, while during the campaign stating he was not a war hero, as he was caught and he prefers his heroes to not get caught. No reason to add that, just felt like it.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump has officially pardoned that Sheriff in Arizona who was found guilty of racial profiling. I mean I'll laugh when he claims the "fake news" aren't reporting what he's saying or tweeting.

Is anybody surprised?

Itssoeasy

Calina wrote: »

Sebastian Gorka has apparently resigned.

Really ? Oh well that's cheered me up slightly. He came across as a horible person. Steven miller left for general Kelly to put maners on and tell the langer to shut up.

Itssoeasy

Zaph wrote: »

The message that this pardon sends out is that there hasn't been a better time to be a racist in America in years. Could he not have even waited a while to let the furore over Charlottesville die down a bit instead of just throwing another gallon of petrol on the fire?

The message that sends is just building on his moral equivalency he mad last week.

BabyCheeses

At most I would have thought Trump and his supporters to be at most accepting of racists but seeing their reaction to this has somehow managed to give me a worse view of them.

dfx-

Was Mother Nature taking too much attention from him? The White House announces the pardon two hours after Arpaio's lawyer knew of it and just as the hurricane makes landfall.

Mancomb Seepgood

Long Twitter threads drive me mad but this one about the career of Joe Arpaio is incredible: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914?s=09

Nody

StringerBell wrote: »

His meaningless tweet a while ago or something new happen there?

He's made the official request to Pentagon to indefinitely ban all trans people from the armed forces; the same idea that 56 generals told him was outright stupid.

Manic Moran

I am not a fan of pardons in general. If they're convicted of something, there's presumably something behind it. That said, if he's going to do such a thing, the timing is more related to the conviction: He was only just convicted, the pardon now keeps him out of jail instead of coming later, after he's jailed. Still, Arpaio is highly popular in conservative circles. If, say, Manning can get a pardon, so can Joe. Goose/gander and all that.

Nody wrote: »

He's made the official request to Pentagon to indefinitely ban all trans people from the armed forces; the same idea that 56 generals told him was outright stupid.

As for the transgender thing, for what it's worth, the 56 generals in question are not the ones running the military, and the latter are the ones who have been asking for a hold. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/us-military-chiefs-transgender-delay/index.html . They were not on board when Secretary Carter forced the issue, and they don't seem to have changed since.

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

As for the transgender thing, for what it's worth, the 56 generals in question are not the ones running the military, and the latter are the ones who have been asking for a hold. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/us-military-chiefs-transgender-delay/index.html . They were not on board when Secretary Carter forced the issue, and they don't seem to have changed since.

This is only another repeat of don't ask, don't tell because there are hundreds of transgender people serving perfectly fine in the military as is and will be yet another blot on the military failing at the top due to personal rather than military values.